Vader wrote:Huh? One minute, you don't want Barker at all and now that Gillis signed him you're justifying the signing? C'mon. Quit the cheerleading. Pick an opinion and stick to it

Vader, welcome to the Gillis Cheerleader Club. Get used to it. You will no longer be allowed to have a negative opinion of Barker until he is no longer a Canuck. Apparently everything Gillis touches turns to gold.

IT IS NOT SO MUCH THAT HE IS MADE OF GOLD. IT IS MORE THAT HE IS BOTH GOOD AND NOT SO GOOD AND BOTH DESERVE RECOGNITION RATHER THAN DOOM AND GLOOM ABOUT MG 24/7

Blob Mckenzie wrote:I was referring to the season before when AV played Rome ahead of Ballard. I probably should have mentioned that. Last year , especially in the 2nd half of the season and playoffs Ballard was given a bit more of an opportunity.

As I said I have zero problem with Aaron Rome as a 6th/7th guy but he will probably get a better chance in big D.

I also had zero problems with Rome as a 6/7th guy, and agree that it was comical how AV played Rome over Ballard (especially on the PP) in 2010/11.

Rome has a shot to play in Dallas' top 4, but will probably be a bottom pairing guy again. He should at least be a regular player there as long as he doesn't play like shit.

(edit: With the Vandermeer signing I guess the Canucks aren't as much of a fan of Barker as some might have thought either..)

Seems to me like a player where there is reason to believe he could succeed, but no particular reason (from the outside) to believe he will.

I guess the management group either thinks they are going to turn Barker's career around, or much more likely they think the depth chart spot they have in mind for him is so unimportant that if he stinks as badly as he has everywhere else they can replace him with a better player before the playoffs.

Actually to some extent they probably think both of those things.

Still, gotta wonder whether Barker is going to outperform other guys who have signed for similar money to what Barker got so far.. Matt Gilroy, Kurtis Foster, Mike Mottau, Radek Martinek. Chris Campoli is out there too although he is probably looking for more money and a bigger role than what the Canucks were going to offer.

dbr wrote:I guess the management group either thinks they are going to turn Barker's career around, or much more likely they think the depth chart spot they have in mind for him is so unimportant that if he stinks as badly as he has everywhere else they can replace him with a better player before the playoffs.

Actually to some extent they probably think both of those things.

I do think they see some potential upside in Barker, but this is more about loading up on veteran D-men in a likely injury riddled short season.

You can look at Barker and Vandermeer as fringe NHL players with NHL experience that are around or just below league average for depth players.

If the Canucks don't have these guys in the system and the youngsters aren't ready, then they have to give up assets, whether it's a low level prospect or a late round pick, to bring in a fringe guy with no familiarity with the team to fill a short-term need.

Also, neither Vandermeer nor Barker are highly thought of enough that Gillis won't look to add another top 4-6 D-man in a potential trade. If there is to a significant improvement to the defence, it's gonna come through trade, not $600-700K signings.

Like I said before, this is just depth but it's not easy to convince a player who is seriously wanting a top 6 job to sign here to fight for a spot and play for relative peanuts. So like you said, it's easy to want someone like Campoli instead, but he might not be as willing to come to a team with a crowded blueline.

Same reason it would have been pointless to try and get a guy like Fistric out of Dallas (he just went to Edmonton for a 3rd rounder), those guys are not going to be happy getting into a game every now and then.

It's just a shame that the Canucks don't seem to have a beat on a player talented enough to get into games regularly but with little enough track record that he is actually available - like Aaron Rome once was. Perhaps circumstances right now are such that those players just aren't available, but I hope the team does better than Alberts/Barker/Vandermeer next time they have a full offseason to work on it.

dbr wrote:It's just a shame that the Canucks don't seem to have a beat on a player talented enough to get into games regularly but with little enough track record that he is actually available - like Aaron Rome once was. Perhaps circumstances right now are such that those players just aren't available, but I hope the team does better than Alberts/Barker/Vandermeer next time they have a full offseason to work on it.

Yeah, I think Rome is the exception when it comes up to picking up fringe players. The percentage of players who rise from fringe status is very low to begin with, and even if management has a great eye the likelihood of that type of player working out is still pretty low.

I do agree that ultimately, this team does need to have something better to step in and play a significant role if a major injury or two hits the defence.

I can live with Vandermeer, Barker and Alberts in the short-term but if any of those guys have to play in the top 4 for an extended period....

dbr wrote:It's just a shame that the Canucks don't seem to have a beat on a player talented enough to get into games regularly but with little enough track record that he is actually available - like Aaron Rome once was. Perhaps circumstances right now are such that those players just aren't available, but I hope the team does better than Alberts/Barker/Vandermeer next time they have a full offseason to work on it.

Yeah, I think Rome is the exception when it comes up to picking up fringe players. The percentage of players who rise from fringe status is very low to begin with, and even if management has a great eye the likelihood of that type of player working out is still pretty low.

It is. I suspect it's even harder to get those players now that we have sufficient NHL depth, you have to wonder if earlier in Gillis' tenure he had offered jobs to guys like Aaron Rome and Tanner Glass without obvious holes towards the bottom of the Canucks depth chart, would those players have passed and gone to teams with fewer legitimate NHLers?

I do agree that ultimately, this team does need to have something better to step in and play a significant role if a major injury or two hits the defence.

I can live with Vandermeer, Barker and Alberts in the short-term but if any of those guys have to play in the top 4 for an extended period....

It will be interesting to see what happens with this team if/when they feel they have the prospect depth down in Chicago to start giving those kids short term assignments at the NHL level.

I'm sure most NHL veterans wouldn't appreciate signing with a team only to see an AHL call up taking most of their playing time when the opportunity arises, however I'm also pretty sure most NHL franchises don't want to see their up and coming defensemen sitting 40-50 games a year.

RDs fave player David Booth is off for a MRI. "Tweaked" his groin yesterday and they don't know how serious it is so off to gather more info on it. He's apparently limping pretty good today and typically "tweaked" and "MRI" aren't used in the same sentence.